« Home | How Cassandra Cain got thrown away » | Waid retweets victimology » | Roger Slifer, 1954-2015 » | Erik Larsen talks about costumes and vocal minorit... » | Another citation of Wertham's progressive standing... » | Quesada keeps giving a fake sense of reality » | Tony Bedard blurs the boundaries of fiction/realit... » | William Tucci tweet about the Bowe Bergdahl case » | The MSM wants a female Thor to become the norm at ... » | What 3 writers are saying about Ted Cruz » 

Thursday, April 02, 2015 

What a few writers are saying about Indiana's religious freedom law

With Indiana and several other states in the USA drafting a law to protect the rights of Christians and Jews who don't want to be forced to serve gay marriage, some artists and writers have decided to launch faux-outrage over it. For example, Patrick Zircher:

Say, Zircher, are you aware Islamic sharia can be turned against gays, women, Jews, Christians, atheists and Buddhists alike? The former's happening in Iran already. That doesn't disturb you?

That could easily describe what's found in the Quran. Namely, it's view of "infidels". But why do I get the feeling none of that concerns our old friend Patrick?

But what about a certain country in the middle east called Saudi Arabia, my dear Zircher? And if that does concern you, what about Apple's business conduct?
And one of the worst things about it, especially if you support gay marriage, is how parochial the outrage is. MKH touched on that the other night in noting that Apple somehow manages to tolerate capital punishment for gays in Saudi Arabia in the name of selling iPhones there. Jonah Goldberg noted on Twitter this morning that Iran’s own death sentences for the crime of homosexuality are obviously no impediment to the peace-in-our-time nuclear deal that’s brewing right now. The world’s richest corporation and most powerful government could draw real red lines aimed at helping gays abroad but they don’t because it might cost them something. Only when it costs them nothing, like in the absurd hypothetical of a great wave of Indiana businesses kicking gays out, do they pound the table. They’re beneath contempt. And they’ll never be called on it by anyone who matters to them.
So, Zircher, will you be buying any more products from Apple Corp. so long as they continue to put up with those horrors in the House of Saud? It may not matter to Apple, but what about you, Patrick? Here's your chance to vote with your wallet and let Apple know you can't approve of their deaf-ear turn. Next is Gail Simone:

A better query would be: has Simone condemned the House of Saud for their own homophobia, and Apple for their kowtowing?


I heard that Simone's not particularly worried about France's jihad crisis. Not even about gays and lesbians who've been attacked by Islamofascists there. And not even about ex-Muslims who've been targeted for apostasy. Is that so?

Americans are okay so long as it doesn't stipulate they must fully service their beliefs, mentalities, ideologies, stuff like that, or that they're forbidden to question the lifestyle. None of which matters to an apparent "progressive", I guess.

But Gail, if you turn your back on homosexuals in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen and Qatar, to name but some examples, then you are tolerant of bigotry. Sorry.

Anyone but Islamofascists, right, my dear Gail?

Tell that to the Islamofascists, Gail. And now, let's turn to Kurt Busiek:

Or do they? According to this recent polling data, blacks oppose gay marriage by 20 digits, and Latinos by 8. The site Busiek turned to is pretty leftist, so maybe this shouldn't be too surprising they'd mislead.


But does Busiek have a problem with Muslim homophobia? Doesn't look that way so far. This was the same guy who didn't think extremism could combine with religion.

And for Busiek, Muslim homophobia may be the least worrisome form of homophobia around too. That's probably also the case with Gerry Conway, who said:

But Islamic discrimination against gays is never to be denounced, is it? Ron Marz doesn't seem particularly bothered either:

And there's nothing like a leftist expressing faux outrage over Christians and Jews who don't want to service the LGBT agenda against their beliefs, is there? Nothing like "normalization" either, if that matters.

And Marz sounds like a guy sans interest in being informed. Although he has addressed the case of Memories Pizza facing death threats and having to close down.

No, if they were facing threats of violence, then it's not a boycott so much as it is an anti-capitalist act.

No argument there. But, how come he doesn't name the possible sources who committed the offenses? And, why does he seem to be falling back on his ultra-leftist position:

In that case, they don't have the right to discriminate against Christians/Jews who disapprove of gay marriage and other such ideologies, nor say they're wrong to disapprove. Nor do they have the right to deny service to Christian customers, as Walid Shoebat recently discovered had happened (H/T: The Jawa Report).

Correction: they're lamenting his ignorance, is what. Right down to his apparent disinterest in Muslim countries who discriminate against gays and lesbians and even execute them. That's why we feel this is all just a lot of faux-outrage. Let's also note the difference between Judeo-Christians and Islam: the former would rather LGBT just let go of that mentality and not insist it be a role model, while the latter considers LGBTs expendable and considers it acceptable to commit violence. So why do these leftists always think the former is worse than the latter? Pure cowardice, I figure. Now here's a tweet by Neil Gaiman:

Why is opposition to the law from the left not altruistic? That'd be a better question. And here's at least two by G. Willow Wilson:


Assuming that's true and not an April Fools joke, have they actually condemned Islamic countries espousing far worse laws than any western country does? Did they even condemn a Muslim tribunal in Texas for trying to establish a sharia court? The only reason I can figure they'd have a problem with this new US law is because they consider it a Christian/Republican development and don't want to be on their side. Just like the reason many Muslims today vote Democrat is because they see their policies coinciding more with theirs, in contrast to how things were up to 2000, when many Muslims in America voted Republican. Yet contrary to what she says, there are Muslims out there who'd be quite fine with such a law, like this barber in Canada who didn't want to provide service to a lesbian. Seeing how there was no serious criticism of the barber for his stance, that's why any alleged opposition to the Indiana law is just a lot of taqqiya.

And again, that's why this is all just a lot of faux-outrage coming from "progressives".

Labels: , , , , , ,

ISNA's opposition to the RFRA sounds like a case of taqqiya.

And Simone says that you are not supposed to be tolerant of bigotry. But her definition of "bigotry" is "any disagreement with me about anything."

Some inform Wilson:

If a Christian doesn't cater a gay wedding, he's a bigot.

If a Muslim doesn't cater a gay wedding, you're a bigot.

As for Simone, especially, with her you'll find no greater hive of ignorance and stupidity. Seriously.

In the first place, you should consider rewriting the first couple sentences because the way you've said it makes it sound like the equivalent of a meat-eater being married into a vegetarian family.

Second: I honestly don't know why you're so concerned about the Middle East when your not even a native from that part of the world. Let America come first and everyone else second while that sandy region self-destructs from so many conflicting cultures and practices being confined in its area, the people there can go, but not the resources, that's more important.

Avi's lived in Israel for over 30 years. I'd say that gives him a right to be concerned about the Middle East.

That's the part that amazes me: how can you live in a region of the world for so long when A: the natives of said region hate your race so much that they want to test their swords and bombs on you, and B: even removing the human element from the equation, it's still not the most pleasant place in the world to live in?

According to Drag, if someone wants to kill you, then you should just move. Run away, Avi! Run, away!

Hmmm. There's only one problem: Islamic terrorists are determined to hunt down Jews everywhere in the world and kill them.

Now what, Drag?

Survivability doesn't just refer to outrunning your opponents, it can also refer to overpowering them, poisoning them, making it too hard to get to you, etc.

That aside, why not just take some bombers, fly over troubled areas, and pound them until they give up? If the first round doesn't get them, just up the stakes with nukes and the like; after all, there's nothing to wreck out there.

If I may be permitted to return to the original topic...

Simone says that most American Muslims vote Democratic. Of course. Many Libertarians vote Republican, although they disagree on certain issues (abortion, legalizing drugs). Muslims may not agree with the Democrats on gay rights, but they have common interests on what they consider to be more important issues (weakening America's defenses, undermining Israel, helping Iran get nukes).

And Simone, Marz, and the rest of the usual suspects need a crash course in Logic (and Tolerance, for that matter) 101:

Your rights are being violated if you and your partner (both competent, consenting adults) can't marry. Your rights are not being violated if you have to settle for a civil ceremony instead of a fancy church wedding, because some religions and denominations don't condone same-sex marriage.

Your rights are being violated if you can't marry. Your rights are not violated if you have to shop around a little, because some florists and photographers and bakeries cater to gay weddings, and some don't.

My rights are not being violated if a gay couple move into the house next door. My rights are violated if I am forced to take part in their wedding ceremony. (That includes catering it.)

Your rights are not violated if a florist declines to sell flowers for your wedding. Or if a bakery declines to provide a cake. Or if a minister refuses to perform the ceremony.

Your rights are violated if you are a priest or rabbi, and the law requires you to perform a wedding ceremony that is against your religion. Or if you own a flower shop or a bakery, and you get driven out of business by death threats.

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link

About me

  • I'm Avi Green
  • From Jerusalem, Israel
  • I was born in Pennsylvania in 1974, and moved to Israel in 1983. I also enjoyed reading a lot of comics when I was young, the first being Fantastic Four. I maintain a strong belief in the public's right to knowledge and accuracy in facts. I like to think of myself as a conservative-style version of Clark Kent. I don't expect to be perfect at the job, but I do my best.
My profile

Archives

Links

  • avigreen2002@yahoo.com
  • Fansites I Created

  • Hawkfan
  • The Greatest Thing on Earth!
  • The Outer Observatory
  • Earth's Mightiest Heroines
  • The Co-Stars Primer
  • Comic book websites (open menu)

    Comic book weblogs (open menu)

    Writers and Artists (open menu)

    Miscellanous links (open menu)

  • GoStats charts
  • W3 Counter stats
  • Click here to see website statistics
  • blog directory Bloggeries Blog Directory Top Blogs Entertainment blogs Entertainment Blogs
    Entertainment blog TopOfBlogs
    View My Stats

    AmazingCounters.com

    Comics blog Blog Directory & Search engine blog directory eXTReMe Tracker Locations of visitors to this page

    This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

    make money online blogger templates

Older Posts Newer Posts

The Four Color Media Monitor is powered by Blogspot and Gecko & Fly.
No part of the content or the blog may be reproduced without prior written permission.
Join the Google Adsense program and learn how to make money online.